Originally posted by ivanhoe
Mother Theresa about abortion: We all want to live in peace, but how can we live in peace in a society that allows mothers to kill their own unborn children. When there is no peace in the womb then there cannot be peace in our minds.
Same thing applies to the death penalty ...
Legalising state violence will not help to fight crime ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latex Bishop: "But then, thats not exactly a socially progressive statement in itself."
But in my opinion "legalizing state violence" as you phrase it has been proven to fight crime. The tougher three strikes and your out laws enacted in the nineties have caused the crime rate to decrease almost every year since they were enacted, until it now rests at near 30 year lows across the board.
It's nice to be nice but some people are really bad people.
Originally posted by ivanhoe
What do you mean saying "not exactly socially progressive" ? Please include in your answer the point of view of the child.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latex Bishop: "I mean exactly what I said, not getting into an argument about abortion or the power and influence of the catholic church here as it takes away from the nature of this thread."
Andrew
Well, Andrew, I created a new thread. It's not about the Catholic Church, it's about peace.
There cannot be peace in society when women are allowed to kill their own unborn children.
To strive for peace (= solving difficult problems) using war methods(killing) is something I possibly cannot lable as being "socially progressive". These methods are as old as human kind itself and I think we should all, progressive, liberal and conservative, be opposed to these methods, no matter how effective or tempting they might appear ...
Originally posted by gregofthewebWell, it's in my opinion not a matter of trying to be nice. Among other things it is about whether you can use killing as a morally acceptable way to strive for law and order. You use fear as a way to accomplish peace (= absence of crime) in society. What kind of peace is that ? In this vision there is no need for social change and therefore this "method" is not threatening for those in power and who want to control society.
But in my opinion "legalizing state violence" as you phrase it has been proven to fight crime. The tougher three strikes and your out laws enacted in the nineties have caused the crime rate to decrease almost every year since they w ...[text shortened]... d.
It's nice to be nice but some people are really bad people.
Same thing goes for using killing (=abortion) to solve problems a woman faces when she finds herself to be pregnant in a situation that forces her to perform abortion. Wouln't it be a duty of society to create such a society in which women can find other solutions for their problems other than being less or more forced to kill their own children ?
Thát's what I call socially progressive. The other "method" is a "liberal" or "conservative" one, you do not have to change society. It does not affect the interests of those in power ....
At what stage is a foetus/embreo is concidered life?
If any foetus/embreo is to be concidered as a lifeform, from single cell through to full term, then why not every egg & sperm as these are each half a life? By not getting pregnant at every oppertunity are we denying countless millions of the chance to live?
"every sperm is sacred" - Monty Python and the Meaning of Life
Originally posted by gregofthewebI have read, but not had it confirmed, that the 3 strikes laws had a problem. If I am properly informed, it is that anyone who commits 3 federal offences will go t jail for life, no parole. Am I right so far?
But in my opinion "legalizing state violence" as you phrase it has been proven to fight crime. The tougher three strikes and your out laws enacted in the nineties have caused the crime rate to decrease almost every year since they were enacted, until it now rests at near 30 year lows across the board.
It's nice to be nice but some people are really bad people.
OK. Assuming I'm not way off already, here's the problem as I've read it: Not many people are likely to commit murder 3 seperate times, most rapists are 1 off chancers, so these guys get life for their 1 federal offence but have the chance of parole. On the other hand, your average drug addict is VERY likely to reoffend for possession, which is a federal offence at very low (presonal use?) volumes. So the drug addict ends up in jail for life with no chance of parole, and there's thousands of them because prison isn't a deterant for drug use, so your prisons have become horribly overcrowded. This leads to pressure being put on the parole boards to let people out early, but the drug adicts don't get parole. Who does get parole hearings? The murderers and the rapists do! So the really nasty guys get let out early after 7 years.
I don't know if the 3 strikes rule is effective in other ways, but if this is accurate then it needs sorting out in others.
Originally posted by belgianfreak
At what stage is a foetus/embreo is concidered life?
If any foetus/embreo is to be concidered as a lifeform, from single cell through to full term, then why not every egg & sperm as these are each half a life? By not getting pregnant at every oppertunity are we denying countless millions of the chance to live?
"every sperm is sacred" - Monty Python and the Meaning of Life
What do you say to people who are advocates of death penalty when they say: "That person deserves to die, that criminal, that monster, he's lost his right to live."
Originally posted by ivanhoeohh, a politician - answering a question with a question. But I'll try to answer yours anyway:
What do you say to people who are advocates of death penalty when they say: "That person deserves to die, that criminal, that monster, he's lost his right to live."
What I say to people who advocate the death penalty is, why? As I stated before, it is totally ineffective as a deterant, it costs the tax payer more to kill someone (after the umpteen appeals and years of max. security solitary on death row) than it does to lock them away, and if you find out later that you did get it wrong there is nothing you can do about it. I'm not arguing whether or not that person has the right to continue to breath because it doesn't get that far.
Wanna answer my question?
Originally posted by belgianfreakI thought your question was a rhethorical one, sorry ...
ohh, a politician - answering a question with a question. But I'll try to answer yours anyway:
What I say to people who advocate the death penalty is, why? As I stated before, it is totally ineffective as a deterant, it costs the t ...[text shortened]... ath because it doesn't get that far.
Wanna answer my question?
The line is drawn when the process of becoming a full grown human being has begun and a human decision of interrupting this proces is necessary to prevent this. Therefore the line is drawn there were conception occurs. After that the process is set in motion and it needs a human decision followed by a human act to stop this very process. Stopping that process is called abortion, "abortus provocatus".
Originally posted by ivanhoeno need to apologuise - I'm tired so my 'tone' may come accross as harsher than intended. Also, for the same reason, I'm in the mood to play devils advocate so will argue against you as best I can. I hope it doesn't cause offense.
I thought your question was a rhethorical one, sorry ...
The line is drawn when the process of becoming a full grown human being has begun and a human decision of interrupting this proces is necessary to prevent this. Therefore the line is drawn there were conception occurs. After that the process is set in motion and it needs a human decision followed by a human act to stop this very process.
Back to the discussion at hand. You chose the line to be drawn at conception, but don't really say why. Why not draw the line at sex? We all know the Catholic opinion on contraception - is this wrong too, to deny life the chance to even get started?
If the reason to draw the line at conception is that after that it is human action, not inaction, that halts the process then why not expand that rational to other areas. Leave cancers to grow, child heart defects right as nature intended them? Why do we have the right to halt natural processes sometimes but not others?
Because one stops life and the other prolongs it? I don't hold life sacred above quality of life, hence my views on euthinasia (another debate). Is it right that a 14 years old girl who was raped should be forced to keep & raise the child who is a constant reminder of her rape? It has happened.
Should a 16 year old, who by the flip of a coin that she got pregnant on a 1 night stand, be forced to keep the child, spend the next 16 years raising it, hating every moment of this imprisoned existance? What if she has the abortion, waits a few years, meets a nice man, gets married and has 3 kids in a stable home. Now we have 3 extra lives, and both she & her husband are happy with them.
I don't necessarily agree with abortion. I don't necessarily think that my arguments here are strong. I do however thnnk that general rules never apply to all cases so an all out ban on abortion is as wrong as having no control at all.
Originally posted by Phlabibitwhy? Is it going to explode? I fear maybe yes, and in my direction too 😞
I wouldn't touch this thread with a 12 foot pole.
P
nb. does the little unhappy guy above sigh occasionally? I could have sworn I just saw him do this, but then he didn't do it again. ANd if I halucinated it than I'm definatly too tired and it's time to quit 'work' and go home.
Originally posted by belgianfreak
no need to apologuise - I'm tired so my 'tone' may come accross as harsher than intended. Also, for the same reason, I'm in the mood to play devils advocate so will argue against you as best I can. I hope it doesn't cause offense.
Back to the discussion at hand. You chose the line to be drawn at conception, but don't really say why. Why not dra ...[text shortened]... never apply to all cases so an all out ban on abortion is as wrong as having no control at all.
The Church draws the line at conception. Yes, the proces has begun that will result in a full grown human being. That's why the line is drawn there. Before the conception there is no such proces, there is no such being, therefore there cannot be an abortion.
The Roman Catholic view on contraception is widely misunderstood. The Church considers natural ways of familyplanning acceptable, using the "period" of the woman. The other ways are being rejected. So, it is acceptable to practise familyplanning. It requires selfcontrol, not very popular in a society aimed at getting pleasure.
So, it is not acceptable to just create as many human beings as possible. The man and woman have their own responsibilities in deciding how many children they want ! The method that is advised to them by the Church is the natural one.
The Church is not advising to let nature take it's course. As I hopefully explained in the above it is perfectly all right to use natural (in this case = intended by God) ways of preventing children to be born.
In case of a disease the situation is a different one. Maybe nature intended disease, I do not know, but God did not intend disease. He does not want us to suffer. Remember that God is often called a doctor who's aim it is to cure us from disease, pain, sadness, sin and even death.
The question of what God intended is at stake and God wants us to act according to what he intended. If conception took place than we can assume that God wants that being to live. As far as diseases are concerned, aspecially terminal illnesses, we can assume the same thing. God wants us to live and God does not want us to suffer ! Therefore we can act as his instruments to realise this goal of his and we can try to cure the person. Of course the ultimate Divine Act of Redemption is to save us all and definitely from our last enemy and that's death itself. Unbelievable ...
I hope this answers your question about whether it is OK to halt "natural processes" and not others.
"Because one stops life and the other prolongs it? I don't hold life sacred above quality of life, hence my views on euthinasia (another debate). Is it right that a 14 years old girl who was raped should be forced to keep & raise the child who is a constant reminder of her rape? It has happened.
Should a 16 year old, who by the flip of a coin that she got pregnant on a 1 night stand, be forced to keep the child, spend the next 16 years raising it, hating every moment of this imprisoned existance? What if she has the abortion, waits a few years, meets a nice man, gets married and has 3 kids in a stable home. Now we have 3 extra lives, and both she & her husband are happy with them." Belgian freak.
That's why I've stated that society should change in order to make it possible for women (and men) to find other solutions to the problem of not being able to receive and raise a child. Lots and lots of other couples are waiting to adopt a child. That is an option that society should promote and I hope you can think of other "diplomatic" solutions, so the people involved are not forced to use a solution that is the worst and that is to use the ways of war and that is killing.
We need social change in order to persue peace, not only on the international level but also on the social level ánd in the personal level. The ones who are in power are preventing this. They do not want social change and therefore they are making people to choose "their ways" of dealing with situations .... the "easiest" way ....